Talk:FOCUS

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

untitled[edit]

The article states: "Focus features the unique ability for the user to construct a data description file referring to the actual data file, or even several different data description files addressing the same data file in different ways, rather than the usual practice of having the file structure hard-coded into the program." Using a "schema" to describe the data is hardly a "unique ability" -- it is a fundamental property of just about any database management system or 4GL.

Also, please note that the name "FOCUS" should be in upper case.

Note: sorry if I'm doing this wrong... probably am. This wiki stuff is new to me. The section you are calling into question was in the original version of this document. I only edited that sentence it to put in the name of the metadata files (master files). In 1975, external meta data (meta data separate from the program itwself) was a unique feature and made FOCUS different from COBOL or PLI when accessing data.

Tried to explain better... is the feature as described really as universal among 4gls? I program in SAS and DB2 and you sure can't do that kind of stuff. I imagine as a data warehouse administrator you write database structures, but can you write multiple descriptors for the same actual data file? I'd be intersted to find out if anyone can spare the time to explain. thanks. Gzuckier 05:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can remove that sentence anyway, since it is no longer a differentiator.

Can you tell me specifically why you flagged our 3 new pages (WebFOCUS, Information Builders and iWay Software) with the POV flag? I didn't see anything in the talk files for these POV disputes.

I edited the sentence to take out "unique" and made sure all reference to FOCUS were properly upper case. I also deleted the NPOV flag. Is this acceptable?

It should be as long as nobody still believes the article contains significant POV. It looks alright to me, although a little too pro-FOCUS. Deco 00:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all the programming articles tend to give the positive features more weight. Although "this sucks because.... don't use it unless you have to" might actually be of more use to people. Gzuckier 05:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To give the "unique" part context, I made it say
"A feature that was unique at the time is that" Pi314m (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FOCUS was not the orginal 4GL, NOMAD was. NOMAD, written by National NCSS, Inc, was launched in 1973 as successor and competitor to RAMIS on National CSS timesharing systems. It was the first database retrieval system to feature a full programming language, and a report statement that allows relational database operations. Its descendent is the SQL Select statement. See http://chp.computerhistory.org/blogs.php?user=National%20CSS&entry=2330 .

FOCUS was Gerry Cohen's answer to NOMAD. A PC version of NOMAD was written in the 80's. NOMAD still exists today and is actively being marketed — http://www.selectbs.com/products/nomad.htm . When and if I have time, I will revise the article about it.

NickP 12:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

feedback[edit]

Can verify most of what is in current text per my working experience 30 ya. It was the ugly traditional dp thing relative to smalltalk and prolog which were introduced to me at the same time/job. Relative to the mainframe CICS, VSAM kind of stuff though, it was considered advanced. Relational, which didn't really become dominant till the 90s, pretty much wiped it away though as often happens it necros to the present. Lycurgus (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]